Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[mumblethrax]

There's nothing stopping the law from defining sex as biological, as you said upthread.

Sure. It just doesn't follow. They are strictly independent questions.

Wha? The law is gender? What does "it" refer to?

The law. What I'm trying to point out is that the law, in this area, is itself nothing more than a set of social arrangements about how men and women, girls and boys are to be treated. The law is incapable of doing anything beyond creating and enforcing gender norms. If the law says you're male for the purposes of the law, that doesn't make you male.

And it can use scientific and biological definitions to do so.

Sure. But it is still inescapably a gender norm. The law has no power to do anything else.

This just states your position (the razor places the law and gender on one side).

Not "law and gender on one side", but "the law [specifically legal arrangement around sex] on the gender side."

I think that position is pretty undeniable. The alternative is to argue that this is all a function of biology, which would be a strange view to hold, given that different societies have different answers to these questions.

 

[mumblethrax]

That is not the general goal of all anti-discrimination laws. The general goal is to end discrimination that is considered harmful in and of itself.

And it's considered harmful because it prevents people from fully participating in society. See above.

And these aren't anti-discrimination laws that we're discussing.

Of course they are. Public accomodations.

 

[Ziggurat]

And it's considered harmful because it prevents people from participating in society.

A male claiming to be female can participate in society by using the male restroom. A male claiming to be female can participate in society by competing in athletic competitions against males.

Of course they are. Public accomodations.

No. Discrimination remains fully in force. Trans people just get to pick which side of the discrimination line they get put on. But the line remains, and non-trans people don't get to cross it. The laws in question do nothing to end discrimination. Those laws are not even intended to end discrimination. This is such a fundamental error on your part I have to wonder if you've even been paying attention.

 

[Paul2]

Sure. It just doesn't follow. They are strictly independent questions.


The law. What I'm trying to point out is that the law, in this area, is itself nothing more than a set of social arrangements about how men and women, girls and boys are to be treated. The law is incapable of doing anything beyond creating and enforcing gender norms. If the law says you're male for the purposes of the law, that doesn't make you male.


Sure. But it is still inescapably a gender norm. The law has no power to do anything else.

Not "law and gender on one side", but "the law [specifically legal arrangement around sex] on the gender side."

I think that position is pretty undeniable. The alternative is to argue that this is all a function of biology, which would be a strange view to hold, given that different societies have different answers to these questions.

The law can institute rules dependent on nothing more than biology, having nothing to do with gender (as a social construct). It can regulate or require or prohibit A for one biological sex and B for the other. No gender in sight anywhere.

 

[mumblethrax]

A male claiming to be female can participate in society by using the male restroom. A male claiming to be female can participate in society by competing in athletic competitions against males.

And? We're talking about a general principle here.

The laws in question do nothing to end discrimination. Those laws are not even intended to end discrimination. This is such a fundamental error on your part I have to wonder if you've even been paying attention.

?

The law in question is the NYC Human Rights law, it is an anti-discrimination law, and it does, in fact, ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity with respect to public accommodations, and that's why it's impermissible to prevent trans people from using the public restroom corresponding to their gender identity.

A fundamental error, indeed.

 

[mumblethrax]

The law can institute rules dependent on nothing more than biology, having nothing to do with gender (as a social construct). It can regulate or require or prohibit A for one biological sex and B for the other. No gender in sight anywhere.

If it's regulating who belongs where on the basis of their sex, that is a gender norm.

 

[Ziggurat]

And? We're talking about a general principle here.

No, we're talking specifically about trans "inclusive" laws, and what benefit they provide. You claimed it was to allow full participation in society. This claim is nonsensical.

The law in question is the NYC Human Rights law, it is an anti-discrimination law, and it does, in fact, ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity with respect to public accommodations

No. If you're a male and your gender identity is that of a man, you are not allowed to go into a women's restroom. You are discriminated against. Discrimination is very much still in effect, and that law does nothing to end it in regard to segregated spaces.

 

[mumblethrax]

No, we're talking specifically about trans "inclusive" laws, and what benefit they provide. You claimed it was to allow full participation in society. This claim is nonsensical.

It's not nonsensical. It's foundational.

No. If you're a male and your gender identity is that of a man, you are not allowed to go into a women's restroom. You are discriminated against. Discrimination is very much still in effect, and that law does nothing to end it in regard to segregated spaces.

Why would you expect it to? You seem very badly confused about what this law is, and what it was intended to do.

 

[d4m10n]

Then give me some examples where this has happened in NYC.

Here you go:

Female patrons of YOGA complained and yelled at Miles about Miles’ presence and use of the single-sex locker room and bathroom labelled Women, and they demanded Miles leave and cease using the facilities.

Female patrons of YOGA complained to YOGA about Miles’ presence and use of the single-sex locker room and bathroom labelled Women and they demanded Miles leave and cease using the facilities​

Looking for a mainstream news write-up but haven't found one yet.

 

[Hercules56]

No, we're talking specifically about trans "inclusive" laws, and what benefit they provide. You claimed it was to allow full participation in society. This claim is nonsensical.



No. If you're a male and your gender identity is that of a man, you are not allowed to go into a women's restroom. You are discriminated against. Discrimination is very much still in effect, and that law does nothing to end it in regard to segregated spaces.

Sex segregation does not equal discrimination. Such abuse of the term does great disservice to the long battle against real discrimination suffered by women and racial minorities.

 

[Paul2]

If it's regulating who belongs where on the basis of their sex, that is a gender norm.

Isn't it a sex norm?

 

[mumblethrax]

Here you go:

Female patrons of YOGA complained and yelled at Miles about Miles’ presence and use of the single-sex locker room and bathroom labelled Women, and they demanded Miles leave and cease using the facilities.

Female patrons of YOGA complained to YOGA about Miles’ presence and use of the single-sex locker room and bathroom labelled Women and they demanded Miles leave and cease using the facilities​

Looking for a mainstream news write-up but haven't found one yet.

How is this an example of a sexual predator gaining access to a women's restroom by pretending to be trans?

 

[mumblethrax]

Isn't it a sex norm?

Given that the law can treat men as women and vice versa, I would say no.

 

[d4m10n]

How is this an example of a sexual predator gaining access to a women's restroom by pretending to be trans?

Zig's claim was that "bad things have happened as a result of trans-inclusive policies in nominally segregated spaces." I've no idea whether Miles is a sexual predator, nor whether they were pretending at anything, but I do know that this experience was bad for everyone concerned. Evidently Miles believes that trans-inclusive laws and/or policies entitle them to freely enter women's spaces, but the women in that particular space did not agree. It will be interesting to see what the courts say, but I'd be willing to bet on Miles prevailing one way or another.

 

[Cain]

A male claiming to be female can participate in society by using the male restroom. A male claiming to be female can participate in society by competing in athletic competitions against males.

This is kind of like the old argument that said traditional marriage did not discriminate against gay people because gay people have always had the right to marry -- they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. The most compelling argument for female-only restrooms is that they empowered women to be public citizens by allowing them to safely venture out. The same would go for disabled people, who understandably feared having to use a restroom. The costs for ADA were not insignificant, as you well know. A lot of ink was spilled in National Review and Reason about just paying six-figure sums to the disabled rather than expensive retrofits to accommodate a minority.

 

[mumblethrax]

Zig's claim was that "bad things have happened as a result of trans-inclusive policies in nominally segregated spaces." I've no idea whether Miles is a sexual predator, nor whether they were pretending at anything, but I do know that this experience was bad for everyone concerned. Evidently Miles believes that trans-inclusive laws and/or policies entitle them to freely enter women's spaces, but the women in that particular space did not agree. It will be interesting to see what the courts say, but I'd be willing to bet on Miles prevailing one way or another.

I dunno. Miles has apparently filed two other lawsuits. There's a decent chance we're talking about a grifter here.

 

[lionking]

Given that the law can treat men as women and vice versa, I would say no.

As has been pointed out, offences by transwomen are being recorded as offences by women.

Whoops responded to wrong post.

 

[theprestige]

I don't see any reason to believe that it makes the problem worse.

The mechanisms by which it makes the problem worse have been shown to you. The predicted outcomes of those mechanisms in action have been shown to you.

But I cannot help you see them.

 

[lionking]

How is this an example of a sexual predator gaining access to a women's restroom by pretending to be trans?

And my reply was meant to be to this. Offences by transwomen are being reported as offences by women.

This stuff in up there in Humpty Dumpty land with women rape victims being directed by judges to refer to the rapist’s appendage as “her penis”.

 

[mumblethrax]

The mechanisms by which it makes the problem worse have been shown to you. The predicted outcomes of those mechanisms in action have been shown to you.

I don't think they have. The mechanisms have been described, but not demonstrated. The outcomes aren't there at all.

If this was really a huge vulnerability that will definitely be exploited by predators, why wouldn't we see that in the assault rates? Far from being able to show that such policies cause increases in assault rates, people struggle to come up with examples of this happening at all.

I really don't see this as being a successful strategy for predators. Hiding in a bathroom when people aren't around seems like it would draw way less attention.